Following Robin McAlpine’s excellent article, some responded by asking where is the hard evidence of a conspiracy against Alex Salmond? Well, here is some of it, not public before.
My trial for contempt of court is now fixed for 27 January. This is an extract from my lawyers’ latest submission requesting disclosure of documents which the Crown Office is hiding, both from my trial and from the Holyrood Inquiry:
QUOTE
4. The information in question is:
(a) A series of written communications involving Peter Murrell, Chief Executive Officer
of the SNP, and Sue Ruddick, Chief Operating Officer of the SNP. They discussed
inter alia a pub lunch or similar occasion between Ian McCann, a SNP staff member
working for them, and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, one of the complainers in the HM Advocate
v Salmond trial. At the lunch, Mr Murrell and Ms Ruddick expected xxxxxxxxx to firm
up her commitment to giving evidence against Alex Salmond, and to discuss
progress on bringing in others to make complaints. They expressed dissatisfaction at
Mr McCann for his performance in achieving these objectives and expressed doubt as
to his commitment to the cause.
(b) A communication from Ms Ruddick to Mr Murrell in which she explained to
Mr Murrell that progress on the case was being delayed by Police Scotland and/or
the COPFS’s saying there was insufficient evidence, and in which communication
she expressed the sentiment that, if the police/Crown would specify the precise
evidence needed, she would get it for them.
(c) Text messages from Mr Murrell to Ms Ruddick stating that it was a good time to
pressure the police, and that the more fronts Alex Salmond had to fight on the better.
(d) Communications from Ms Ruddick about her visits to a number of locations,
including the Glenrothes area, and including in conjunction or discussion with
xxxxxxxxxxxxx. These communications detail their unsuccessful attempts to find
witnesses who would corroborate allegations of inappropriate behaviour against
Alex Salmond. They include a report of a meeting with young people who were
small children at the time of the incident they were seeking to allege, who did not
provide the corroboration sought.
(e) A message from xxxxxxxxxxxx stating that she would not attend a meeting if
xxxxxxxxxxx were also present as she felt pressured to make a complaint rather than
supported.
(f) Messages in the WhatsApp group of SNP Special Advisers, particularly one saying
that they would “destroy” Alex Salmond and one referring to Scotland’s ‘Harvey
Weinstein moment’, employing the #MeToo hashtag.
5. The respondent saw this information before he published the articles and tweets that
are the subject of these proceedings. The respondent considers that the information
in question would materially weaken the Lord Advocate‘s case and materially
strengthen his case because: (i) it materially strengthens the respondent’s case on
Article 10; and (ii) it materially weakens the Lord Advocate’s case, and materially
strengthens the respondent’s case, on the alleged breach of section 11 of the
Contempt of Court Act 1981
END QUOTE
You can see the full application from my lawyers pub2101131230 DISCLOSURE APPLICATION (1)
To which the Lord Advocate yesterday replied:
QUOTE
4. In respect of the first question, it is understood that the material referred
to in paragraphs 4a – 4f of the disclosure application are private
communications. As such they can have no bearing on the question of
the degree of likelihood of the disclosure of the complainers’ identities
by the publishing of the articles detailed in the Petition and Complaint
and Submissions for the Petitioner.
5. In respect of the second question, the Respondent asserts in his answers
and submissions that a finding of contempt would be contrary to his
Article 10 rights. The material is not relevant to the court’s consideration
of the Respondent’s Article 10 rights. Further, the disclosure of the
material may constitute a breach of the Article 8 rights of the parties to
those private communications.
Advocate
END QUOTE
You can see the Lord Advocate’s reply in full here 20210114 Answers to Disclosure Request (3). Note the Lord Advocate acknowledges the existence of these messages (which the Crown Office holds) but argues they are private, and irrelevant.
On the face of it, these messages are evidence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. They refer to pressuring the police, to pressuring a witness, to highly improper encouragement of “evidence”. To reveal them would breach Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick’s right to private communication? If, dear reader, you ever feel the urge to conspire to commit a crime, be sure to do it by text message, then the Lord Advocate will ensure that it is all kept nice and secret.
It is important to state that the woman in para (a) to whom Ian McCann was sent to screw her courage to the sticking point, was Woman H. She was vital as her allegation was the most serious of all. She was the most active perjurer in the Salmond trial, the woman who was not even present on the occasion she claimed to have been the victim of attempted rape. This is my report of the defence evidence about Ms H at the time, not reported in any detail anywhere else but on this blog:
The first witness today was Ms Samantha Barber, a company director. She had known Alex Salmond since 1994 when she was working for the SNP as a research assistant for the Euro elections. She had thereafter been employed by the European Parliament, and in 2007 become the Chief Executive of Scottish Business in the Community, a post she still held in 2014. She is now a director of several companies.
In the seven years Alex Salmond was First Minister she had several times been a guest at Bute House for dinner. She had a positive and respectful relationship with Alex Salmond but they were not personal friends outside of business.
She had been a personal friend of Ms H, the accuser who alleged attempted rape, for some years by 2014. They remain friends. She had been invited to the evening reception of Ms H’s wedding. She testified she is also a friend of Ms H’s current husband.
Ms H had telephoned her to invite her to the dinner at Bute house with the (not to be named) actor on 13 June 2014. Ms H in inviting her had stated she (Ms H) was not able to be there. In fact Ms H had indeed not been at the dinner. Ms Barber had arrived that evening at around 7pm. She had been shown up to the drawing room. The actor was already there and they had chatted together, just the two of them, until about 7.15pm when Alex Salmond had joined them. The three of them had dinner together. It was friendly and conivivial. At first the actor’s career had been discussed and then Scottish independence. Nobody else was there. Asked if any private secretaries had been in and out during dinner, Ms Barber replied not to her recollection. Nobody interrupted them
One bottle of wine was served during dinner. She had left after dinner around 9 and the actor had stayed on as Alex Salmond offered to show him around the Cabinet Room.
Defence Counsel Shelagh McCall QC asked her if Ms H had been there? No. Did you see her at any point during the evening? No.
[Ms H had claimed she was at this dinner and the attempted rape occurred afterwards. Alex Salmond had testified Ms H was not there at all. A video police interview with the actor had tended to support the idea Ms H, or another similar woman, was there and they were four at dinner.]
Prosecution counsel Alex Prentice then cross-examined Ms Barber. He asked whether she had received a message from the police on 29 January. She replied yes she had, and called them back on 3 February. Prentice asked whether they had then told her they wanted a statement, and whether she had replied she needed to take advice first. Ms Barber agreed.
Prentice asked why she would need legal advice to give a statement to police. Ms Barber replied she had never been involved in any judicial matter and wanted to understand the process she was getting into before she did anything. She had not said she wanted legal advice first, just advice.
Prentice asked again “why would you need legal advice before talking to the police”? Ms Barber again replied she wanted to understand the process she was getting into.
Prentice asked again, twice more, “why would you need legal advice before talking to the police?”. He got the same answer each time. You will recognise from yesterday’s report of his cross-examination of Alex Salmond, that it is a rhetorical trick of Prentice, to constantly repeat the same question in order to throw an unreasoned suspicion on the veracity of the answer. On this occasion he was stopped by the judge, who had enough.
Lady Dorrian pointedly asked him “Is a citizen not entitled to take advice, Mr Prentice?”, in a Maggie Smith tone of contempt.
Prentice then asked whether Ms Barber had already been at another Bute House dinner in May. Ms Barber replied not that she could recall. Prentice then asserted that the dinner on 13 June was with the actor, Ms H, and Alex Salmond. Ms Barber replied no, she genuinely had no recollection at all of Ms H being there.
The defence counsel Shelagh McCall QC then resumed questions. She asked if the police had put to Ms Barber that Ms H was there. Ms Barber replied that they had, and she had told them exactly what she had told the defence and now told the court, that Ms H had not been there.
The next witness was Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, who swore on the Koran. She had joined the SNP in 2000 and been appointed national Women and Equalities Convenor in 2011. From 2015 to 2017 she was MP for the Ochil Hills.
Shelagh McCall QC asked if she knew Ms H. She replied for some years, and more frequently from 2012. Ms H had been involved in the Yes campaign. They had a good relationship, and in 2014 Ms H had asked her advice on standing for the SNP national executive committee.
McCall asked her if she remembered the date of the 13 June 2014 dinner. Tasmina responded yes, that was the day her father had died. She had received a message he was taken very ill that morning and had set off for London. At Carlisle they learnt he had died. (At this point the witness broke into tears.)
Before leaving Scotland with her husband she had messaged the First Minister’s office to say she would not be able to attend the Scottish women’s international football match the next day. (The point of this evidence is it contradicts Ms H’s evidence of her interaction with Ms Ahmed-Sheikh over the football.)
Given the nonsense that was Woman H’s allegation, given the context of a new policy for complaints against ex-ministers which has been shown beyond doubt to be designed from the origin to trap one single man, given the frantic attempts to boost, invent or shore up complaints, given that the complainers were all from a tight coterie at the heart of Scottish government, given that the complaints fell apart when exposed to examination in court, I have no doubt that what we have here amounts to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
In addition to which, Peter Murrell very plainly committed perjury when appearing on oath before the parliamentary inquiry into this matter, when he denied the existence of the hoard of text messages detailed above which are the subject of my latest disclosure application. Here is the evidence of his committing, firstly desperate obfuscation, then perjury.
But this is a straight lie. There is a lot more material. There is precisely the material detailed above that I have requested disclosure of for my court case and which the Crown Office refused to release as they are “private messages”. As you can see, it is precisely what Ms Baillie was asking for. The Crown Office has withheld this material from the Holyrood Inquiry. The Crown Office have also written to Alex Salmond – three times – to tell him that he will be prosecuted if he releases this material to the committee or provides any detail of its content.
There can be no doubt whatever that the Lord Advocate is now corruptly protecting Peter Murrell from a charge of perjury by keeping this material secret. I am aware that the Crown Office has received a letter from lawyers pointing out this perjury, and in response the Crown Office have tendentiously focused purely on one single question.
The Crown Office has rejoined that all of the undisclosed text messages in the series to which Jackie Baillie was referring are purely between Sue Ruddick and Peter Murrell. No other party official was involved, so Peter Murrell was not lying in this answer, which was specifically to a question of whether there were messages to any other party official.
But taking the totality of the exchanges, it is crystal clear that Baillie was not referring solely to texts to officials other than to Sue Ruddick. This is plain throughout but crystal clear here:
That is plainly a straight lie by Murrell. There is a great deal more material, as detailed in my application above and admitted by the Crown Office in their reply that these are “private messages”. It is plainly perjury by Murrell to say there is nothing else.
The Crown Office is lying to protect Murrell from perjury charges, and it has lied to protect Murrell before. The only two texts from the voluminous Murrell/Ruddick exchanges that have been leaked and have been published, to which Jackie Baillie refers, read as follows. They are from Murrell, instructing his junior Ruddick:
“TBH the more fronts he is having to firefront on the better for all complainers. So CPS action would be a good thing.”
“Totally agree folk should be asking the police questions. Report now with the PF on charges which leaves the police twiddling their thumbs. So good time to be pressuring them. Would be good to know Met looking at events in London.”
Yet in correspondence with Kenny Macaskill MP, Lindsey Miller of the Crown Office – who were sitting on these messages – denied the existence of these specific messages before they were leaked. This is an extract from a letter to Macaskill from Ms Miller, deputy Crown Agent – who remember was in possession of the texts listed immediately above.
I defy anybody to state that they honestly believe that Murrell’s message to Ruddick instructing her: “Totally agree folk should be asking the police questions. Report now with the PF on charges which leaves the police twiddling their thumbs. So good time to be pressuring them.” can be characterised as “no evidence” that Murrell put pressure on the police, directly or indirectly. Miller was lying. You might say it is not conclusive evidence – though it is pretty damning. But you cannot say it is no evidence. It is strong, prima facie evidence.
Macaskill having next quoted the precise texts she was hiding to her, this was then Ms Miller’s response:
Yet again, the amount of sophistry involved in protecting Peter Murrell, and the care for his private messages, is in sharp contrast to the gung-ho attitude of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office to the prosecution of anyone who exposes the conspiracy against Alex Salmond, of which the Crown Office is a part.
My friend and colleague Mark Hirst has been triumphantly acquitted last week on the ridiculous charge of threatening behaviour to which he had been subjected for saying that those who conspired against Alex Salmond would “reap the whirlwind”. The Court found, entirely sensibly, that this was plainly in a political context and there was no case to answer. The Crown Office had instituted an obviously ridiculous charge – found “no case to answer” – out of pure political malice.
Readers of this blog will recall they helped substantially, with £10,000 from my own defence fund having been transferred to Mark.
But Mark’s life has been turned upside down. He lost his employment as a journalist as a result of the charge. His life has been wrecked and he is now having to earn a living working very hard, for a lot less money, in a completely different field from that he is qualified in. I trust he will not mind my saying the whole experience hit him very hard. Remember his home was raided by five officers from the Police Scotland “Alex Salmond team” and all his electronic equipment confiscated, while his name was dragged through the mud on both social and mainstream media.
The same “Alex Salmond team” still exist, are working on my prosecution, and are currently still engaged in a painstaking investigation as to who leaked two of the Murrell messages to Kenny Macaskill. Both the Crown Office and Police Scotland effectively now operate as the private enforcement arm of the Murrells, protecting them from consequences of their wrongdoing and persecuting their perceived political enemies .
That is what Scotland has become.
It is also worth noting that the perceived political enemies are not unionists – in my own case, dozens of MSM journalists who much more plainly committed jigsaw identification than I are not being prosecuted – but Independence “fundamentalists”.
There is much more evidence that the Crown Office is hiding, apart from the Murrell/Ruddick messages and the SNP Special Advisers whatsapp group. The Crown has also refused to release for my trial, or to the Holyrood Inquiry, the following documents:
- The text exchange between two complainants containing the phrase “I have a plan and means we can be anonymous but have strong repercussions…” referred to in the trial proper proceedings.
- An e mail from SNP official and defence witness Ann Harvie alleging a “witch hunt” and the emails from Sue Ruddick to which she was replying. This was referred to in the trial proper but this evidence was not admitted before the jury after objection from the Advocate Depute.
- Scottish Government documents produced as part of the Judicial Review hearings which support Mr Ronnie Clancy QC assertion of conduct on the part of Scottish Government officials “bordering on encouragement”. This was referred to in open court in the Court of Session proceedings of January 8th 2019. This should include the relevant “One Notes” of the Scottish Government Investigating Officer.
- Documents relevant to the circumstances in which details of a Scottish Government complaint was leaked to the Daily Record newspaper in August 2018. The matter of the circumstances in which this information appeared in the public domain was referred to in the evidence of Chief Inspector Lesley Boal in the criminal trial.
- Documents relevant to the circumstances in which the Scottish Government sources briefed the Sunday Post newspaper in August 2018 that matters were referred to the police on the advice of the Lord Advocate and whether there is documentation demonstrating that such advice was also revealed to complainants by Scottish Government officials or others as a means of persuasion
All of which is still only the tip of the iceberg. The extent to which the Crown Office colludes to keep the Holyrood Inquiry in the dark is truly a disgrace to Scotland.
My own trial starts on 27 January, which is now confirmed. It s going to be “virtual” – nobody will be in a courthouse, not even the judges nor me. I shall be sending out information on how you may follow it live shortly. I plead with you to do so – a political persecution is bad enough, I certainly do not want it to operate in the dark. Put 27 and 28 January in your diary!
—————————————————–
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Etherium/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
” As such they can have no bearing on the question of the degree of likelihood of the disclosure of the complainers’ identities by the publishing of the articles detailed in the Petition and Complaint and Submissions for the Petitioner.”
Sounds like an artful dodge coupled with suppression of relevant evidence.
Absence of relevant evidence can also support an appellate argument of being subjected to an unfair trial for reason of exclusion of relevant evidence.
Seems like you are going to have to run the course.
I suppose Courtenay Barnett is referring to the same point I was about to make. But I was not certain.
My thought was: how can messages between two public officials discussing their official business be described as “private” and irrelevant? An email has often been described as “sending a postcard” – everybody can see it. In the US at least, emails are part of the public record. That is why Clinton was using her private server. Can it be that Murrell etc simply didn’t think that emails could be checked? If they didn’t want anything to be recorded, why not a simple phone call (though even those may be recorded these days). How is British law different?
Laguerre,
I am forty ( 40) years in the legal game.
I embrace all that you say – however – my only reservation ( if I have any reservation) would be a distinction between English/Sottish law. I doubt that on the wider examination the idea of ‘fairness’ does not transcend any and all procedural distinctions between both systems.
I appreciate your reply – and – at a later stage – when Craig Murray passes and ultimately overcomes his Gethsemane – I undertake to state a very serious case that I had argued in a British colony many years ago. Then you shall fully understand the depth of the legal cancer and the judicial corruption.
Thanks again for responding.
Courtenay
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/16/scottish-police-officers-lose-disciplinary-fight-over-racist-messages
Double standards/Two tier system?
Murrell and Ruddick are employed by the SNP not the Scottish Government so consequently are not “public officials”. Having said that surely the messages are prima facie evidence of intervention of Party officials in what is supposed to be a Government complaints process, which should give concern as to the fairness of the process.
You really have to question the intelligence of this bunch. If you are going to carry out a conspiracy to fit somebody up its not smart to document it in emails, memos and text messages. They really believed they were beyond the law.
Sometimes you can chase the rabbit so far down the hole that you forget why you went down the hole.
You can catch the rabbit and end up with no place to eat it,
Your meaning is a bit obscure, old friend, but they are trying to send me to prison in under a fortnight. I have not the least desire to be in this fight. But if attacked, I fight.
Such a shame you’re not an English Socialist, & weren’t special advisor to a certain Jeremy Corbyn from 2016.Turning the other cheek to those determined to destroy you utterly always a feeble & failing strategy. All the best for the 27th, & many here ready with further financial support if necessary.
Yes – English socialist (or UK socialist) would be better. The `Independence’ thingy looked quite OK until Nicola Sturgeon came along – now it is completely clear that Scottish Independence means Tony Blair in perpetuity as far as policy goes. But it is worse than that – Nicola Sturgeon’s attempts to lynch Alex Salmond look much more blatantly inept than anything Tony Blair ever did. Westminster may be utterly corrupt, but at least they’re better at hiding it and preserving a veneer of outward respectability. Getting on-side with Jeremy Corbyn looks like a much better bet to me than pushing for independence.
I pretty much agree with just about everything he is trying to achieve – I just don’t see how independence for Scotland is a useful step in achieving it – looking at Nicola Sturgeon and her Holyrood set on one side and Boris Johnson, Kier Starmer and the Westminster set on the other, I’m reminded of the closing scenes of `Animal Farm’.
Oh, please. Nice try but no cigar!
Scottish Independence is bigger than Nicola Sturgeon, or the SNP for that matter.
The UK ‘Labour’ Party and it’s ‘Scottish’ branch office are laughing stocks north of the border.
There was NO turning of cheeks by Jeremy Corbyn, Sikunder. When you own and/or control the MSM you control the narrative, and needless to say, the very media who conspired in the ‘anti-semitism’ smear campaign against Jeremy (and the left membership) were never EVER going to allow him a fair hearing and, as such, expose the very smear campaign that they – the MSM – were a party to. What more evidence does anyone need than what happened (on the day the EHRC published its so-called report), when Jeremy defended his record on tackling A/S in the party and said in a statement that the problem of A/S in the party had been ‘dramatically overstated’ by political opponents inside and outside the party and the media. Yes, he was suspended from the party – ie suspended for telling the truth!
Later the same day – on Sky News – Jeremy elaborated and explained that in a survey the previous year (he was referring to the survey conducted for the authors of Bad News For Labour) respondents believed, on average, that a third of party members had been reported (to the LP) for anti-semitism, and then pointed out that the actual figure was just 0.3% of members. The following clip is from the Daily Mirror:
Mr Corbyn told Sky News: “The numbers have been exaggerated in my view. The public perception in an opinion poll last year was that a third of all Labour party members were under suspicion of anti-Semitism.
“The reality is it was 0.3% of members has a case against them which had to be put through the process.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-labour-suspends-jeremy-corbyn-22925298
And what happened when Jeremy’s team condemned the Panorama black propaganda hatchet job! Yes, not only was he vilified and demonised for attacking the ‘brave’ so-called whistleblowers who had been ‘courageous’ enough to speak out about the anti-semitism problem in the party, but six of them, along with John Ware, then initiated legal action against the LP for defamation, albeit not until seven months after the program aired AND a couple of months after the 2019 general election (I mean it was a near certainty that Jeremy would lose any GE whenever it was called, but given how close he came to winning in 2017, there was no point in Ware and the ‘whistleblowers’ taking any unnecessary chances!). And I have little doubt that at the point when they DID initiate legal action, they had already been told that the LP will not contest the case, apologise, AND pay them damages.
As Malcolm X said:
“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
My obscure comment wasn’t directed at you personally, Craig. Maybe i shouldn’t have had that extra glass of wine with my lunch, as it seemed to make perfect sense when i posted it. 🙂
I wish you all the best for your trial on a ridiculous Trumped up political charge.
Juteman
I think you have been way down there way too long – but I guess you have plenty of company with all the other truth deniers on WGD.
Cubby, aka Independence for Scotland, aka whatever name he uses on different blogs.
I want justice for everyone involved in this sad affair.
Juteman
Now that you have confirmed that it is you I was told posted on SGP an offensive below the belt comment that I didn’t like Sturgeon because I was impotent and I was this other poster – you really need to get out more – oh that’s right you can’t, you are stuck deep down in your black hole where the truth does not permeate.
Juteman is this the level of your truth – childish insults about someone being someone else who doesn’t like Sturgeon because they are impotent. At the Scotgov briefings they regularly give out details of mental health contact numbers – your hero Sturgeon implores you to take advantage of the support available. I suggest you do.
LOL.?
Juteman
Would that be a drunken laugh or
A mad laugh or
A mad drunken laugh.
Seek help.
And by ‘justice for everyone’ I sure hope you are not including ‘the victims of Alex Salmond’ 😉
Justice was served in that trial, as Alex walked free.
Wow…. Taken together with all the publications this weekend on` Wings over Scotland` I`m shocked at the bare-faced stance taken by those at the head of government in Scotland, the police and the prosecution service. Shocked but not surprised. Take heart Mr. Murray, your supporters grow with each revelation. My meagre contribution to your cause shall continue, they shall not silence truth.
As the only reliable witness to the Court proceedings, can you give some indication as to how long Alex’s team were allowed to lead with the WhatsApp evidence before they were shut down? Given that they were instructed in the pre-hearings that this evidence was strictly verboten it seems odd to me that they weren’t shut down immediately (this being the impression I gained from reading your detailed reporting). Perhaps the Judge though it only “fair” that the jury at least know of the existence of the WhatsApp group?
Shut down very quickly, I think. The only exception being when one or two complainants also in the Whatsapp group had their own messages put to them, which could hardly be disallowed.
A newspaper story I read online said that Alex admitted in court to a sexual relationship with one of the alphabet women some time prior to the incident she alleged against him – I think it was woman H who made the false rape allegation. (I was following a link from a BTL comment here or WOS and I can’t find it now, sorry) Craig you were there in court, did Alex actually say such a thing or is this just another smear by the MSM?
Another smear I came across was in an editorial in Holyrood Magazine which I’ll paraphrase: “Salmond’s behaviour, while not criminal, was truly dreadful”. Would that be the behaviour that was conclusively proved NEVER TO HAVE HAPPENED? Journalistic ethics in the UK appears to be a contradiction in terms, or perhaps like unicorns it’s purely mythical.
There was an admitted sexual encounter between two consenting adults. Broke no laws, rules or guidelines at the time. It would have broken marriage vows, dependant upon which version they were, or a moral code, for those that still have one. Hence the, “been a better man,” statement.
This had nothing to do with the allegations raised by Mrs Murrell’s coven. Even when they were trying to use the revolting, and extremely illegal in every other country on Earth, Moorov doctrine to frame Salmond where cheating on your wife makes you a rapist.
It might seem risky for someone awaiting trial to call the Lord Advocate corrupt … but luckily the Lord Advocate has already admitted the charge:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18864243.lord-advocate-admits-damages-liability-rangers-chief-charles-greens-20m-malicious-prosecution-claim/
Ah ha – I infer from this that the Lord Advocate is not an avid Rangers supporter.
So what team does he support? Partick Thistle?
Manchester United 😀
“ So what team does he support? Partick Thistle?”
Pulleaze!
Jags fans have enough grief these days without your trying to foist the Woolfe-man on them.
So many parallels between the SNP leadership and the Labour right-centre. Two bulwarks against genuine threats to the establishment; both propped up by Unionist and Tory ‘opponents’ in MSM, who bury their crimes and hypocrisy.
That you have been singled out for prosecution, despite there being dozens of more obvious offenders, mirrors the brazen persecution of the Labour left. Truth and dissent are simply not permissible. The public is invited to applaud the punishment and silencing of any perpetrators.
Excellent post, Carl.
I agree that the Lord Wolfe and the COPFS are colluding to shield the Murrels. That this is happening, in Scotland, is appalling. I half expect Transportation for Treason to be brought back onto the statute book to deal with the likes of us.
To tell the truth in a time of deceit is a revolutionary act
— George Orwell.
It would appear we are all revolutionaries now.
Revolutionaries, indeed. And we should bear in mind Orwell’s claim about telling the truth being a revolutionary act!
An independent Scotland led by corrupt persons willing to pervert justice is not worth having.
Though an independent Scotland is probably the last thing such persons intend to allow happen.
Your fight is not just a personal one Craig, it is also for integrity and justice in Scotland both now and in the future.
The entire legal profession in Scotland bears an enormous responsibility to support both you and Alex Salmond: if they don’t then they are not lawyers they are apparatchiks of a system of injustice, and have thrown the jurisprudence of Hume and Cockburn in the midden.
Can a spouse be compelled to give evidence against her husband? NS was not called in AS Trial..why not?
Sturgeon was cited as a witness by the defence in the Salmond trial, but the court accepted her request to be excused because of the Covid crisis.
How very fortunate for her.
So – as far as I know the law over 40 years – is it not permissible to have a virtual link and/or zoom or skype so that the evidence can be received?
Something wrong with this picture – as far as I see it.
For the political class, Covid is manna from heaven. No matter the issue at hand there is always something more important to be attended to.
Brave Sir Sturgeon ran away, ran away.
It wasn’t just her mind. The defence cut short the trail and a host of witnesses didn’t appear due to health concerns, and still thrashed the corrupt COPF into oblivion. It is a shame that Honest NIcky didn’t manage to appear as even her tame stenographers couldn’t possibly have avoided reporting on her evidence, as they did with everyone else.
Between this, and what is happening to you Craig, what has been done to Mark Hirst, and Robin McAlpine’s summary of the situation recently posted at Source and reproduced at Wings the stench of rank rotten corruption at the ‘upper reaches’ of the Scottish legal establishment in courts, in the police, and in Holyrood with the SNP I now find myself in the position of now no longer knowing what to do come the May elections.
I’m not a hellishly driven follower of politics, though I do think I’m a little bit better informed than the ordinary Joe of the public that only reads the likes of the propaganda outlet The National (online) or any of the rest of the MSM. When I read Robin’s piece it was then that the penny finally really dropped for me: Sturgeon and the cabal that she has constructed around her are rank rotten; I actually felt that as an emotion and it quickly turned to very, very real actual grief for Scotland and the pass Sturgeon has brought us to. Grief for the future of a Scotland ruled by the likes of that infestation at the very heart of government. Now I don’t know if can actually bring myself to vote SNP for the constituency vote even if I take a sick-bag into the booth with me to help me do the deed. For the List I’ll vote for another indy party (not SNP and not the Greens), but I don’t know if I can vote SNP any more. I just don’t think I could bear to live in an independent Scotland riddled with this malignant corruption at its very core.
What should I do? I don’t know what to do. Like a lot of people that vote SNP I do so because I want independence for Scotland and, like a lot of people, the SNP keep blackmailing me for my vote on the basis that (at least for now) they are the only ones that could potentially deliver that. Now there is additional blackmail — overlook just how corrupt we are and vote for us anyway, we’ll give you indy (which they show zero effort to actually bring about — quite the reverse, the fight against Martin Keatings).
Without a clear-out at the very highest levels of the SNP, the legal system and the police I can’t honestly see how I can vote for the SNP any more, even if they are the only realistic route to independence.
What should I do? I actually feel grief over that.
If I may share my view which may help.
I am like you, not a devotee of politics but am aware of more than the average Joe. This past couple of years I have had growing feelings of being let down by the SNP starting with learning about all the nastiness with the “McMafia” of North Lanarkshire Council and how SNP central office were/are letting such corruption stand. Further to that, the lack of balls that is being shown with regards to our independence. I believe to go down the “Ask Boris’ permission” route is nothing but an utter waste of time. Granted, this past year, dealing with Covid has rightfully taken precidence over pretty much everything independence wise and I am happy to cut a lot of slack.
Yes, the SNP has become corrupt at the top and needs to be replaced with all haste but as far as I can see, they are the only party at the moment that realistically (debateable for some) can achieve independence. I don’t have faith that Labour will do anything and certainly there is no chance under the Tories. If independence for Scotland is a priority for you then despite your real and heartfelt misgivings they must be the party that gets your votes. It is what I intend to do and it sticks in my craw, knowing I am enabling corruption. Assuming that the SNP gets back in as our government in May, then the fight must be to do what we can to out the corruption and to insist on moves towards independence. We can’t sit back and let SNP carry on as they are. Maybe they are not so far gone that they can’t be repaired.
My fear is that if as a protest against SNP inaction and corruption, people install a labour government then I feel the independence momentum of people changing to “Yes” will evaporate and dwindle to such a level that when the next indyref is held, it will go to the “No” side again. The mountain to re-climb will be higher and steeper.
My gut feeling is to suck it up, grit my teeth and keep SNP in government and when we achieve independence then decide on who is fit to govern a free Scotland in the first general election.
The problem is, a vote for the SNP is not just a vote for independence or indeed a vote to ignore this corruption. It is also a vote to allow the Hate Crime Bill, the GRA and any other tin pot poorly thought out legislation that the SNP care to hobble together that will further restrict out liberties. If we were independent we could vote this bunch out come May. Sadly we aren’t, but I can’t continue to give them my vote on a ‘promise’ any more. Only a plebiscite election in May would allow me to vote for them this time around and that is unlikely to happen.
I’ll vote SNP on the constituency list because it’s the only hope for indy. But my very real fear after the past few years is what if the cabal’s aim is to stymie independence long enough for Brexit to happen and the UK government to roll back devolution? If we have an SNP-Green majority as now after May, and they continue to just stand back and do nothing but bleat about “we will not allow…” as powers are removed, what can we, as an electorate, do about it after that point? We’re totally screwed and they and the UK government know it. There is no democratic event for another four years, at least. They can pass GRA, a hate bill that will persecute anyone saying the wrong thing, and can stick their finger up at the indy movement as powers disappear and the UK-Scotland constitution is re-written to a more Spain-Catalonian style one.
I’m afraid I just really, really do not trust that’s exactly what the past few years has been all about – run down the clock and string everyone along until May. Hound Salmond, Cherry, demonise Commonweal, Wings and all the other actually strong indy campaigners. Post May, do nothing and hand the power entirely to Westminster to do as it likes. I truly, with all my heart, do not want to believe that is the case, but I can’t see past how screwed we are if if is, and I need some sign and proof from the SNP that it isn’t the case, whether that’s with action or a seriously kick-ass manifesto for May. Yes, the SNP are the only political vehicle we have for independence. But that also makes them a prime target for bribery, corruption, sell out etc, etc and gives the wider indy movement a real problem if it’s being bypassed entirely for a tiny power clique.
And is it even a vote for independence? Not on the evidence so far. If May is not a plebiscite election I will be spoiling my constituency vote and vote for another Indy party on the list – but not the Greens.
Yes, the post-colonial literature well explains Scotland’s predicament, especially when a dominant National Party and its pampered bourgeois elite shift their aim away from full independence and instead seek to make “an accommodation with colonialism” (Fanon 1967). This leads to protest from the rank and file, to which the governing elite respond with attacks, including by colonial ‘forces’ (e.g. police, courts, and worse) on what are perceived to be the more radical elements of the independence movement. Such politically motivated attacks are now becoming more evident by the day, as the experience of Craig and others has demonstrated.
The next stage involves the creation of new national parties, which is what we see happening in Scotland. These new parties are primarily focusing on the regional list vote in May, however what is really needed is for the new parties to also compete in the constituencies against the disgraced SNP pampered elite, who have taken their foot well off the independence gas, and indeed are now rapidly turning the independence vehicle in another direction entirely.
Here we also see the colonial nature of what some may think of as democracy in Scotland, in the likelihood that the most powerful person in Scotland today, despite the devolved Scottish Parliament, remains the Lord Advocate, as was historically the case more or less since the start of the union with England. As Kenny MacAskill has written, this is a very unusual role in any democracy and, given recent and ongoing events, it is difficult to see the purpose of that role other than to keep the more radical natives in check, and the union intact, by whatever means, and at any cost, it would seem. That most assuredly is not democracy.
Where does this go from here, may be the real question? That may depend in some part on the integrity of the judiciary which, we have to admit, given the results in the Alex Salmond, Rangers, and Mark Hirst cases, seems to auger well, and with the Keating’s case to come. I appreciate that this may not necessarily give you much solace Craig, considering your pressing engagement courtesy of Scotland’s colonial oppressor in chief, but it may be a crumb of comfort in the circumstances nonetheless.
Albert Memmi talked about ‘curing the sickness of colonialism’, and reminded us that: ‘for the colonized just as for the colonizer, there is no way out other than a complete end to colonization’. Scottish independence is absolutely to that end and, given what we are all witnessing, any sensible person should hope it comes sooner rather than later.
What do you do, Peter? I have no idea if you are a voter rather than an SNP activist. You’ve read Robin McAlpine’s artice on the subject, as have I and I too share McAlpine’s reservations. Sturgeon absolutely cannot be allowed to carry on as though nothing has happened, run an Indyref [I think after Holyrood 21 she would have to] and then call herself Mother of the Nation. The thought appalls me.
I think this is down to SNP activists. I don’t know what leverage there is, but there may be some mileage in making it clear to candidates and branches that we will support the Holyrood 21 campaign wholeheartedly, but we will not be delivering material carrying pictures of Sturgeon or messages from her. Also we could make it clear that she will receive a rough ride if she shows her face on the patch. I think there is enough time to replace her.
The trouble is that it is apparently believed that Sturgeon has appeal to young women and there are people around who seem willing to overlook something which looks like Scotland’s very own Watergate for her electoral appeal. Myself, I think that one thing worse than blowing away the idol of young women before they vote would be for Sturgeon to get their votes and for them subsequently to discover that Sturgeon is not who they believed she was.
If we can get our independence then we can change Scotland ourselves. Smaller countries, with the ordinary punter in the street much closer to government and the individuals who run it, are able to change or even reform themselves much more rapidly than their much larger counterparts, revolutions not withstanding.
A second, more immediate, point is that upon independence the SNP will shatter and become one of the many parties that will by necessity govern Scotland in a more collaborative, consensual way rather than the tribal, adversarial manner of today.
Once the oppressive and grasping hand of Westminster has been prised from our throat and our political talents return home, we will flourish. The first step towards that goal is to vote SNP in the constituency vote. Regardless of what we think of the current leadership, the SNP are the only vehicle that offers even a hope of independence. We may have to fix the vehicle in order to get to the end of the road, but we can’t abandon it.
I think the vehicle’s big end has gone and no amount of fixing is going to get it going.. The SNP may well shatter upon independence and maybe that is why they are stalling to ensure it never comes. I no longer believe that a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence. Unless another indy party stands in my constituency I am disenfranchised and will spoil my ballot I’m not voting for a corrupt administration to have another five years in which they can wreak all sorts of havoc on my rights as a woman and on the civil liberties of all.
If the punishment for lying was scaphism, none of this would have happened.
I’m with you Peter. I’ve decided to leave the constituency blank and vote for one of the new independence parties on the list.
Franc,
I don’t understand. It isn’t for me? where is it showing that? Is it how it displays on mobile phone?
What an utter disgrace the Lord Advocate and the COPFS have become, protecting lying corrupt politicians, and attempting to prosecute anyone who seeks the truth. of course as you say the Lord Advocate is up to his neck in shit, and has to continue this charade because he’s no other escape route, the lying bastard has made his bed and now he’s got to lie in it.
Its also a travesty that the same folk are intent on hindering your defence, god only knows what the outside world now thinks of the Scottish judicial system, especially after the al-Megrahi was denied yet again. I don’t know how we’re going to overcome these corrupt public officials, we need a whistleblower to come forward and take the plunge.
I’ll be thinking of you Craig come the 27th I hope you get the same verdict as Mark Hirst.
It’s the death of the press that has caused it. So full of the privately educated who can’t help but support leaders of the same background that coupled with the close ties between the press of all stripes and Mi5/6. When no journalist or editor is prepared to break the scandal then corruption will rule.
I’m no kiddin’. This is the best two quid I spend every month.
The spirit of Lord Braxfield lives: “Find me the man and I will find you the law.”
interesting thought, Penguin. Although they use it sparingly, California has the death penalty. Amongst all the usual offences you would expect to see, perjury, or suborning perjury, that leads to conviction and execution of a defendant is also a capital offence. Now, I am not advocating the death penalty for anyone who may (or may not) have broken laws to try and convict Alex Salmond, our host and others. However, I do agree with the idea that those who corruptly seek to punish someone should face a penalty similar to the one that would have been imposed on the victim of their corruption.
This is the correct Biblical meaning of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’.
Scotland (any functioning society) will not tolerate this grotesque level of unmitigated State criminality.
These rampaging, out-of-control (extremely destructive & dangerous) criminals, must be held fully publicly and criminally accountable for their despicable actions.
Scotland will not tolerate anything less (that’s de facto ‘vow’)…
You’d think, but as Shatnersrug correctly points out above, the vast majority of MSM journos (for want of a better phrase) are not reporting this – purely out of self-interest – and therfore the vast majority of Scottish people have no idea what is going on.
Scotland will tolerate this because they don’t know about it.
Victim Salmond’s (Murray’s/Hirst’s/free press, et al) retribution won’t destroy Scotland, it will safeguard it (all of us) from the precipice of tyranny…
Given that every street these days has CCTV cameras, that Bute House is the Scottish FM’s residence whilst in Edinburgh and that security would, ordinarily, be a prerequisite, why was no CCT evidence brought? Surely, Ms H, if she was there, or if she wasn’t there on a specific date, that could be shown to be the case or otherwise. Even if there was no CCT footage, surely, security personnel would have been on duty, letting people in and out of Bute House? Are no registers kept? Why was nothing produced in court?
Any texts on the subject of the investigation against Mr Salmond, between party staff (Mr Murrell and Ms Riddick) could not have the power to force the police to act? This constant straying between SNP party business, SNP government business and what should have been neutral and disinterested parties is, itself, extremely improper, and lends credence to the claim that the SNP party and government acted as one in trying to control the legitimate parameters of the investigation?
If the Lord Advocate’s office has decided that is okay and is refusing to divulge documents which might show this to have been the case, then the least that can be said is that the party/government/investigation law branch (police and prosecution) are acting ultra vires. The judiciary, thank goodness, appears not have had any part in this. Actually, I would doubt that even the police actively did, probably following procedure, but under pressure because the investigation was into the conduct of a former FM, but the fact that the texts do tend to show that there was a drive to find evidence/shore up against Mr Salmond, are reinforced by the evidence that one of the witnesses felt pressured by another witness.
So much more still has to be brought out, but even that which does exist in the public domain is explosive. I think this goes back a long way, much farther back than the dates of the events in question. What happened between the different actors to bring it to this end? At what point, and why, did it all unglue?
If your case does come to court, and you are scapegoated, all hell will be let loose, I believe. If the Lord Advocate has a modicum of sense, your case will be dropped, as not being in the public interest, before the due date.
Yes, if she was really in Bute House, I am sure the police could have found evidence to prove it. As you say, the First Minister’s residence is bound to be covered by CCTV. I have no doubt MI5 also have tapes…
Bute House is likely to be the most bugged and surveilled property in Scotland. They MUST have had the evidence.
The problem is that it would have exonerated Mr Salmond – the direct opposite of the State’s intention!
you observations get to the heart of why this is clearly a frame up…. the fact they want to drag craig thru the mud is more of the same… this is obscene…. it is the opposite of justice…
Lawyers I know, including close family member, have been telling me for years about how corrupt the Crown Office is, along with Police Scotland and its supposed supervisory the inept and corrupt Scottish Police authority. This is bringing it all into the open.
On a personal basis, I have direct knowledge of how endemic and extensive this kind of corruption is throughout the Scottish Establishment (Civil Service and Universities, and a growing nexus between these two bodies). Not the ordinary decent hardworking folks that actually do the work – but the trough snouting ‘leaders’ in these organisations. There is a conspiratorial web across these and other public institutions, linking up with the banking and finance cartel based in Edinburgh.
These operate through private school networks, golf-clubs, various ‘dining’ societies. masonic lodges, rotary clubs, private-membership clubs and the like. They are nepotistic and cabalistic. They act against the interests of the ordinary people of Scotland.
We have the additional input here of the secret state and the British establishment, as well as all their little helpers. It is no coincidence at all that the matter referred to above by Node concerned the misplaced revenge for the demise of the Glasgow Rangers football club, and those that were wrongly held responsible for that. including the vexatious prosecution of Craig Whyte.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18864243.lord-advocate-admits-damages-liability-rangers-chief-charles-greens-20m-malicious-prosecution-claim/
And now, in addition to what was done to Alex Salmond, Mark Hirst, and Craig, we have the ludicrous situation of no action being taken against numerous perjurers, whilst a man who wishes to tell the truth – the whole truth – is being pressed to go into a situation where unless HE perjures himself by omission, he stands likely to be prosecuted and jailed by these same corrupt bodies – lest their crimes – and the are crimes – come directly and highly visibly into the public domain.
There is a common thread in all of this and that is the British State – and those who hold allegiance to it and significantly – to symbols of it that permeate some very dubious parts of our population.
Salmond and Murray and the others – as decent, honest, fearless, truth-seekers who openly and relentlessly seek to end that evil State, are being pursued with the full vigour of its stinking legal apparatus – the coercive powers of the state in full tilt.
Just what the hell the Murrells are up to – and what their precise relationship is to the British Establishment is what currently intrigues and baffles me. This must be exposed – and the whole stinking mess needs to be brought out into the cleaning sunlight.
We owe Craig Murray much more than most of us realise.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly – I’ve read all the Rebus books too!! (Just kidding, it looks like Ian Rankin realised all this a long time ago, he mightn’t have been able to do much about it but it’s certainly given him a good living)
Complete mess and distraction from what should be preparations for a big Holyrood win and with it mandate for another inde ref.
Be wary of fellow travellers with ulterior motivations jumping up and down with glee over this, i.e., those supporting the unionist cause. They may see your fight as simply assisting theirs. Were Murrell to fall, Sturgeon would almost certainly have to resign, tied as she is to his fate. Goes without saying, that’d be a big scalp – possibly doing incredible damage to the SNP and even killing inde hopes. A reeling SNP could open the door to Ruth Davidson, or Blairite Anas Sarwar, if that’s who Starmer’s crew manage to impose over the next couple of months. So, while absolutely hoping you prevail in the legal case that many believe should never have been brought, if the end result is the scuppering of inde hopes and either Davidson or Sarwar profiting electorally, it’ll be hard to see it as anything other than a pyrrhic victory.
No, if you have a rotten home and you have to partially demolish it, in order to rebuild it rather better, then that’s the unavoidable, but ultimately better, consequence of letting the house fall into disrepair in the first place. If the Scots truly want independence, they’ll gain it. If they don’t, it won’t be for the SNP or any other political entity, however they behave, it will be a lack of will in the citizenry.
Didn’t cast doubt on the idea there is something rotten in the SNP. They’ve fallen into the Westminster big two political mentality due to becoming too comfortable in power and with the status quo. Holyrood’s proportionate system was meant to produce a partnership culture as per Scandinavian countries, not a ‘them & us’ dominator culture the UK and US share, with political elites looking down on the plebs. Machiavellian manoeuvres and secrets and lies aren’t what the SNP should be about either. The SNP is a grassroots partnership of equals or it is nothing.
My point was more about the lousy timing.
John Monroe
‘lack of will’
Forgive me but that is a very quaint, old-fashioned concept of democracy. With Baron Peter Lilley advising idox on how to rig Scottish elections Nicola Sturgeon has nothing to fear from the will of the people, even if Murrell has to own up and apologise to the inquiry into the Alex Salmond trial. He was perhaps using the English language creatively, or some other excuse. Selective memory loss due to concussion in his youth.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14478267.concerns-raised-over-senior-tory-mp-link-to-election-count-firm/
The big algorithm boosters that turned the Tory paliamentary minority into a big majority, were maybe stacked too far against Labour because PTB feared his popularity., But a few swift put downs by the BBC, Starmer and other gonks within the Party and that was completely wafted away.
When a political party has control over all the levers of power, the electoral system, the judiciary, the MSM and its own internal administration, there is nothing you can do to stop or change it.. They have been preparing for decades to achieve this, probably since when Nicola Sturgeon first came under the wing of Alex Salmond..
One has to ponder the full depth of the abyss of the treachery and betrayal, so that nothing more can shock you. Then let the idiots win, and hope that circumstances give them a nightmare like Johnson had covid, then start from scratch using even dirtier politics than the Murrells. Slowly expose all their corruption as it continues, till eventually they have to step down..
Look at the Roman Catholic Church which has taken 1500 years to recognise that not letting clergy marry is a fundamentally bad idea. That’s how long it takes to break down a completely self-serving, comletely top-down, completely dogmatic institution. Scottish Independence will never come through the ballot box because they control the ballot boxes. That was Nicola Sturgeon’s decision from the start, to ally herself with London, while playing the Independence card.
Political Islam has done the same thing allying themselves with USUKIS and the result has been the total destruction of Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Lebanon and many others. They have nothing to show for their years of struggle except pain and calamity for the people , and a salary and chair for themselves from the corrupt powers.
I’ve never suggested it’s easy. But the fact is that the present apparent majority of the Scots wishing independence is not huge. Contrast Ireland. They had to fight and fight, literally. They didn’t need a referendum, they were taking independence as of right. If a large majority of the Scots want independence, and would fight for it. (not with guns but with strikes, civil disobedience, withholding tax, whatever it takes,) independence will come. Political machinations ultimately are powerless if the populace won’t accept them or the government loses its legitimacy. It was always so. The problem is that your fellow citizens are still ambivalent, and I don’t think an ambivalent independence is a very good idea nor a very sound basis on which to construct a country and cooperative and contributive citizenry.
It just gets worse as the facts surface. I have no doubt that the corruption of the SNP stems from their monopoly on power in Scotland. They have no serious rivals, and the polls point to their continued dominance for a very long time. In that position, we have seen the rise of a SNP culture which rewards and enriches its upper echelons who have learnt how to play the system, stick together with no real repercussions from the voters. A very comfortable, upholstered life, where you can flit from one position to another, as long as you demonstrate fealty to the ruling clique, an unquestioning willingness to do their bidding – which they don’t even have to make clear, bonus points for anticipating their needs and thus giving them deniability should a malfunction occur. That’s bad enough, and reminiscent of many autocratic regimes. But what makes it more like those grim examples is the spread of this attitude into the legal and police systems. A liberal democracy supposedly rests its claims to be such on the separation of powers, ensuring checks and balances which can correct overreach or corruption. That has been abandoned in the climate of one party rule and the absolute power of a married couple at the head of both branches of its political organisation.
They are using all their powers to suppress evidence and avoid any notion of the basic requirements of a fair trial and justice. The collusion is astonishing, and I can’t believe that there aren’t people in the legal and police departments who feel very uncomfortable with this. It is time for some of them to step up to the plate.
What is unarguable is that independence under this kind of regime is intolerable, and would be a step backwards instead of forwards. There has to be absolute guarantees that under independence a constitution which would never allow such behaviour would be implemented, where transparency, accountability and justice are locked into the system. I do not see any prospect of that from these people, who have done more harm to their supposed cause than their opposition. What an absolute disgrace.
I repeat what I have said before – occasionally, as I have no desire to cause offence to Mr Murray or his readers. There seems to be very little reason to believe that politics in Scotland after independence would be noticeably more honest or less corrupt than it has been in the past.
It may be a cause for mild optimism that in Scotland, at least, the corruption and dishonesty seems to be so blatant and unconcealed.
In England and in UK institutions, long experience has enabled the abusers of power to cover their tracks much more efficiently.
No offence. Basically the smaller the unit, the better the chance for popular control. Of course we will still have the same dangers of elite power structures as elsewhere. But popular opinion in Scotland is demonstrably well to the left of England, which improves our prospects.
“Basically the smaller the unit, the better the chance for popular control”.
Seems to be a good principle.
Home Rule for Bute! (Although, from memory, its politics are less than squeaky clean).
When we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament-men o’ our ain, we could aye peeble them wi’ stanes when they werena gude bairns – But naebody’s nails can reach the length o’ Lunnon.
Literally carved in stone on the walls of the Parliament building.
You can’t stop politicians and “journalists” from being corrupt, but they are easier to spot when not hidden in a large crowd.
‘There seems to be very little reason to believe that politics in Scotland after independence would be noticeably more honest or less corrupt than it has been in the past.’
That is what whites said throughout africa. It is a racist colonial argument.
It is Scotland’s choice. If things get worse, as the fearmongers predict, it will be up to us to fix it. That is what this fight is all about a right to determine our own future. As someone else posted this morning on twitter, this is a Civil Right issue. Right now we have no right.
But why would we be worse off, we are a rich nation. Theresa May admitted last week that England needs us. We need England like a slave needs a ball and chain. We are also rich in human resources and after Independence the monopoly of the SNP will be over and we can have real debate, opposition and hopefully also more cross party creativity. No other country in the world has wanted to re-join the British Empire.
Cutting out the corruption now is a good start.
You are right Prasad, that colonialism is racism, and which also becomes internalised (see my book ‘Doun-Hauden’). It may come as a shock to many Scots to realise that they are, and have been living under colonial rule, as is most recently demonstrated by our enforced EU withdrawal against our will and repeated refusals by our colonial overseers of a democratically mandated referendum on independence. The ongoing persecution of nationalist campaigners, the fear of the National Party elite to act despite its electoral majorities, and numerous other instances of colonial and cultural oppression of Scots are becoming ever more evident. As this reality becomes clearer, so more Scots will begin to understand that self-determination independence, as the UN maintains, is about ending ‘the scourge of colonisation’.
I went for a walk and thought ‘have i been to harsh (although i wanted to be much harsher), maybe i should allow you to retract your statement’. Now re-reading it i see you write ‘I repeat what I have said before.’ (and perhaps i have also said the same thing before too) so there is no excuse.
Your statement is pure racism and i can’t understand how you can’t see it. Your claim that you don’t want to cause offense seems false. I heard white Rhodesians and white South Africans making exactly the same statements. Why do you think it is fine to say the same about Scotland.
I have two simple questions.
Do you think this statement is acceptable or relevant
‘There seems to be very little reason to believe that politics in South Africa after independence would be noticeably more honest or less corrupt than it has been in the past’?
If that is unacceptable why is it acceptable in Scotland?
if it is acceptable, then i rest my case.
Ian you are right; though I should note the only bright spot of hope so far is the judiciary, which does still seem independent.
Well, I hope so, and I wish you luck (which shouldn’t be necessary if justice gets a look in). In fact I hope your trial uncovers and puts into the public domain the things that they are so desperate to keep from the public and the administration of justice. Certainly the Mark Hirst trial makes your point, and hopefully the same will happen in yours. But it is high stakes, and I think you are being courageous in your transparency.
” independence under this kind of regime is intolerable”
We should perhaps reflect that this Scotland is a colonial regime, which independence is not.
Alf Baird
Independence means no Queen, no 1% grouse moors, no vast private estates, no nukes, no English political interference by Dumfriesshire border hoppers.
From what I gather the colonial plan is to construct privatised business cities which operate outside UK Law, privatise social housing and Health Services and generally use Scotland as a rat lab to experiment with neo- liberal ideas that would be rejected out of hand in England.
Just as Trump emerged on a tide of anti- US hegemony , Scottish Independence emerged on a tide of frustration at Labour going Tory.
The answer of course to this challenge is to get a bent lawyer and a bought press to crack down on Independence by what ever means , foul or fair..
I think we’ve been here before. Clue is Loch Lomond. If that’s what they want, that’s what they’re going to get. Nobody’s going to stand for a small clique of managers signing over Scotland to be a Tory experiment in neo-liberalism.. It happened once and it isn’t going to be done a second time..
There is no great future in Empire2 repeat of the British Empire. The Empire2 mentality of USUKIS is slash an burn the Middle East for Israel. Is it surprising then that Wolffe and Starmer, and son of the Manse Brown and son of the pants Johnson are all bitten with the same false gold fever?
Giyane
Yes, and continued colonialism means all that and worse, and the end of a (Scottish) people.
Fanon tells us that ‘the native is an alien in his own country under colonisation’ and in order to change a colonial society this requires ‘liberating the mind’. An added challenge occurs as the bourgeois native ‘seeks to be an imitation of the coloniser’.
Freedom and independence depends on getting rid of any desire for colonialism, and removing what Fanon calls ‘our colonial mask’.
The SNP’s intellectually-void pampered bourgeois elite do not even appear to understand Scotland’ people as being colonially oppressed (the ending of oppression is the usual rationale for independence), unlike the leader of Plaid, Adam Price (‘Wales: The First and Last Colony’).
Why would independence mean no Queen?
Norway has their own Royals, as do Belgium and The Netherlands. Doesn’t seem to have done them any harm. Or Denmark.
I don’t want to live in a miserable little republic with elected dictators ruining my life.
Tell me you wouldn’t sway Margaret Hilda Murrell for King Robert 1 any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.
It all sounds very much as though those officials charged with the administration of justice in Scotland are no more to be trusted than those in the USA. Which means that neither nation now enjoys the rule of law.
“What a nice lady. I pity her husband, if she has one.”
Note that Barbara Allison ” testified she is also a friend of Ms H’s current husband.” It seems it’s merely a temporary position! ?
There does seem to be a cultural screw loose somewhere in modern politics when the government spies 24/7 on us, thus valuing our citizen / human / religious rights to privacy at zero, while regarding the same rights to privacy by leading politicians as sacred / unchallengable. Time not for legal argument but Jonathon Swift style satire..
The state and the quasi- state the mosque which wants Shariah Law to apply in this country, is illegally filming and recording what I say to.my wife in bed , just checking that Goldfish Giyane is not plotting sedition while he is doing his humdrum circling of his bowl checking whether the items are food or excrement.
Meanwhile, as Laguerre rightly says what the SNP manager says to other SNP officials, trying to collectively politically purge a FFM or former First Minister by false allegations of rape, is private.
The unstable Lord Advocate, ever more convinced that the goldfish is going to blow up the House, smashes the glass aquarium , where Independence lives, to extinguish the possibility of independence existing , ever, either in thought or deed, and then , like Boris Johnson’ s wine-soaked white sofa, guilty orders a new sofa..
I get that the Scottish elite don’t like Democracy, Free Speech, Gender, Privacy, Duty, Rights, Truth, or Honour., but these are the water and glass of our existence. Break them at your peril. The US is heading for civil war. Why not do it? Hillary Clinton’s war mongering years were cut off by the people in 2016. No.more buggering of dictators by special forces.
The y would rather have civil war than democracy stopping their madness
Do it. Put your hammer onto the glass and finish civilisation off forever.
Which one’s the Evil Empire now?
Any corporate structure, including a police force or a government, can do evil if the ones in charge happen to be evil.
Why do the others acquiesce? Is it that hard to get another job?
Many don’t acquiesce, they walk away. And things like the Official Secrets Act and corporate NDAs etc mean you never hear about them.
Whistleblowing is a dangerous business, as Snowden, Mr Murray and Assange can attest. Political elites want to keep the price v.high.
The real question is why elites seem to enjoy stressing themselves out by doing bad things when there are often other ways of
achieving objectives?
Goose
Those you call elites are not elites, but sad individuals who want power. Knowledge is power so the real elites give the sad dreamers snippets of gossip gleaned from their 24/7 -spying machines. Thus they are steered from good advice by selective gossip. And steered towards dodgy deals by smart conman in flashy suits and cars.
Rakes ‘ progress. Or nowadays also hoes.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Eric Cartman of Southpark, Colorado “I don’t make the rules, I just write them” or the other way around.
Alex Harvey had it in a nutshell “There ain’t no such thing as a dirty book, it’s just the way you read it.”
Belter of an article Craig.
Take the information you’ve published here. Tally it with the fact that you alone have been singled out for prosection, while a very small number of easily-identifiable individuals, who published exactly the same information on the trial as you did, have been ignored.
You appear to have an unassailable case that your prosecution is not driven by the public interest and and the interests of justice, but by malice and corruption. That you have been targeted for reasons of malice. That the individuals whose interests are best served by your prosecution are precisely those individuals whose perjury and other criminal acts are being ignored or covered up by the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.
The facts speak for themselves. But it will be a brave judge that will find in your favour on that line of argument. I hope, if this is the line your defence takes, that you have a brave judge.
It is the strongest line of argument because it is the truth. If ‘the Crown’ were genuinely outraged about the identities of these people being revealed it would first have gone after the corporate journalists who revealed them most clearly, and to mass audiences. They cannot justify leaving those corporate journalists alone. Not if they want to sustain the fiction that the Scottish legal system is not a tool of politicians who sought to destroy Alex Salmond.
“It’s not fair that I’m being singled out for prosecution…” isn’t a very strong defence against any charge.
“The reasons I am being singled out for prosecution are malice and corruption…” shifts the argument into a whole new realm.
And please make sure your defence team does not neglect the Human Rights argument:
“Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law”…
Singling you out for harassment while ignoring others who have acted in exactly the same way as you is discriminatory and an infringement of your human rights.
“The Crown Office have also written to Alex Salmond – three times – to tell him that he will be prosecuted if he releases this material to the committee or provides any detail of its content.”
So what if AS is called as a witness and asked to testify to the content under oath or/after which, AS himself applies to a Court to be allowed to release the material in the interest of natural justice.
You are right to continue highlighting this rank corruption and vindictiveness in government, the Crown Office and the police.
A .) because it stinks and is so clear and obvious.
B .) because nobody in mainstream media is willing to point it out.
Keep on fighting them with the facts and honesty.